🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1853taylorj@yvax.byu.edu> taylorj@yvax.byu.edu writes:
>In <40244@ut-emx.uucp>, clouds@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (I) wrote:
>
>>Heh... when video multimedia solutions were first appearing on the Mac
>>platform, Apple endorsed a "two-screen" solution--your control stuff,
>>graphic overlays and so on showed up on one screen (typically the little
>>one :-) and your video went on another. A kludgey solution but I guess it
>>saved the trouble of making a true overlay card or something. Trouble is,
>>it became obvious that the two-screen solution was a flop with users--
>>something about having to swivel back and forth, no cues that "now it's
>>time to look at the OTHER screen," and so on...
>
>I disagree (ok, so I'm not always so agreeable ;-).  

Why, you disagreeable thing, you!

>...  But there are a number of arguments for the "low tech"
>solution of a separate video monitor.  I have conducted informal studies that
>indicate students often prefer 2 separate monitors.  It let's them distinguish
>between the computer and the video (which can be important when teaching about
>a video, such as in a cinematography program using Citizen Kane as an example).

Hmm, I don't quite follow your argument here. What exactly would be on the
computer (the overlay) that a student might confuse with the video? typically
we use overlays for things like <<Rewind}  <Step Back} {Step Fwd> {Fast Fwd>>
buttons, or a Help button... surely no one would confuse those items 
or mistake them for something Orson Welles put in..? 

>It also give you twice the screen real estate so you can use the computer
>screen for a videodisc controller, a transcript of the audio track, a
>synchronized explanation, etc.  

True, but in all those cases you'd be moving your eyes (and your attention)
from the video to the other thing--why did you spend all that money on that
luscious beautiful video if they're not going to watch it? :-)

>And perhaps most importantly, a $200 television
>monitor is a lot cheaper than a $1500 full-screen overlay card (not to mention
>that you tie yourself to complex hardware that may go bad from a vendor that
>may not be around forever.)
>
Now, that argument I'll buy. At our company we get around the real-estate
problem the old-fashioned way: we throw money at it. :-)  Using 19" and 21"
monitors gives you a huge picture, lots of space for even the fattest fingers
to do accurate touch-screen coordinates--and all for only mumble megabux.

>I admit that video overlay is a lot funner, and is indispensable in many
>situations, but you'd be surprised at the number of projects I've worked on
>where we've decided to use two monitors instead of one, even when cost was not
>an object.
>
Actually, neither you nor I addressed a case where two screens REALLY makes
sense: control-panel simulations. I saw a tape of a system where the video
screen was at eye level to a seated user, and the second "computer" screen
was mounted underneath it, more or less at hand level, tilted to the same 
angle as a keyboard. I forget what industrial process it simulated, but you 
get the idea... Flight simulator is as good an example as any.

So I admit, you're right, a lot of my preference for a single-screen solution
is due to the fact that (a) it's more fun, and (b) I'm not the one paying
for it. But I still think my objections--particularly the "should I be looking
at screen A or screen B now?"--still hold.

Agreeably disagreeably yours,

--K


-- 
...........................................................................
:   Kathy Strong               :  "Try our Hubble-Rita: just one shot,     :
:  (Clouds moving slowly)      :   and everything's blurry"                :
:   clouds@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu  :                           --El Arroyo     :
:..........................................................................: